I'm shooting with the Sigma IF EX DG 2.8 24-70 and unless Canon rocks IS on their new 24-70 I can't imagine switching. The Sigma only seems to fall short in that if I point it right at the Sun there are some flares captured. Not really an issue at all, since I know how to avoid the problem.

cps_user

If that's it, and it doesn't come with IS at that price, I'm very happy that I just bought the current version

in my opinion, the current version leaves a lot to desire. In particular weak 2.8 sharpness and mediocre mid contrast killed it for me (had one, sold it). If they fix it and we see a similar improvement as the 70-200 did, I'm happy

Glad they didn't incorporate IS, for me at least. I like it on longer lenses, but I don't think I would use it a lot on this lens, and I'd still pay for it - in hard currency upon purchasing, and after a long day of shooting, in neck and shoulders since it all just adds up to the weight

It seems like canon are getting ready for whatever body to come out, 1Dx, next 5D, ... I guess I've read some posts refering to this lens in relation to the 1Dx or the next 5D. So as the lenses are coming, new FF bodies can't be that far off from launch

Justin

The second switch could be a focus limiter (but not necessary on this lens) and therefore most likely and hopefully for IS.

I'd think the switches would be together, but who knows. Maybe internal design choices necessitated its separate location. Come on IS! In fact I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's an IS lens. There is another switch. No way it's a focus limiter.

Maybe if it has better macro capabilities, it could be a focus limitator or macro work? With no IS, i'll pass and keep my 24-105. With the 16-35 2 being 82mm, i wonder if the 82 is going to be the new 77? Probably a ploy canon has with B&H and Adorama to get people to buy new filters =)

mkln

As people point out regularly, Canon has never done IS on any EF lens below 100mm . . . nice as it would be, why the intense surprise?

-> EDITLooking back, the two other rumored lenses have IS? So, we either have to believe that canon suddenly is going to go IS on their normal/wide EF lenses . . . and this one won't have it?

Something doesn't add up. Maybe Iran is behind the photos, they like photochop

idk, IS = more weight, and 2.8 is sufficient in most situations.having IS would of course be really nice. but the 24-70 (used to?) is really large and heavy.I would sacrifice IS for less weight and overall size.I mean, it's still a zoom lens, it already has a lot of flexibility.having a 24-70 that makes the camera more "normal" is great.

and no name next to the red ring? that doesn't sound like a big deal.there doesn't seem to be space under it anyways?